Nazir 7
וְאֵימָא שָׁנָה? מִי מָנֵינַן לְיוֹמֵי?! וְהָא רַבָּנַן דְּקֵיסָרִי אָמְרִי: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין מוֹנִין יָמִים לְשָׁנִים — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְחׇדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה״, חֳדָשִׁים מְחַשְּׁבִין לְשָׁנִים, וְלֹא יָמִים לְשָׁנִים.
The Gemara asks further: But say it is referring to a year, which can also be full or lacking. The Gemara responds: Do we count years by days? Didn’t the Sages of Caesarea say: From where is it derived that one does not count days toward years, but that years are calculated according to months? As it is stated: “Of the months of the year” (Exodus 12:2). This teaches that months are calculated to comprise years, but days are not counted toward years. Therefore, only a month can be described as being completed by a particular day.
מַתְנִי׳ אָמַר: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה״, ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אַחַת קְטַנָּה״, אֲפִילּוּ: ״מִכָּאן וְעַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם״ — נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
MISHNA: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite for one long term, or: I am hereby a nazirite for one short term, or even if one said: I am hereby a nazirite from now until the end of the world, in all these cases he is a nazirite for thirty days.
גְּמָ׳ אַמַּאי? וְהָא ״מִכָּאן וְעַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם״ קָאָמַר! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֲרִיכָא לִי הָדָא מִילְּתָא כְּמִכָּאן וְעַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם.
GEMARA: The mishna taught that even one who said: I am hereby a nazirite from now until the end of the world, becomes a nazirite for thirty days. The Gemara asks: Why does he become a nazirite for only thirty days? Didn’t he say: From now until the end of the world? The Gemara answers: This is what he is saying: Because of the difficulties it entails, it is as though this matter of naziriteship were as lengthy for me as the time from now until the end of the world.
תְּנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִכָּאן עַד מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״ — אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה יָמִים מִכָּאן וְעַד מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְאִם לָאו — נָזִיר כְּמִנְיַן הַיָּמִים. וְאֵימָא הָכָא נָמֵי: אֲרִיכָא לִי הָא מִילְּתָא כְּמִכָּאן וְעַד מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna (8a): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite from here until such and such a place, one estimates how many days it takes to walk from here until such and such a place. If it is a distance of less than thirty days, he is a nazirite for thirty days, since this is the minimum term of naziriteship. And if not, i.e., if it takes more than thirty days to walk that distance, he is a nazirite in accordance with the number of days it takes to walk to that place. But here too, in that mishna, say that the individual intends to accept only a thirty-day term of naziriteship, and he means to say: This matter of naziriteship is as lengthy for me as the time it would take me to walk from here until such and such a place.
אָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בַּדֶּרֶךְ. וְלִיהְוֵי כׇּל פַּרְסָה וּפַרְסָה! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא מָנֵי פַּרְסֵי.
Rava said: That mishna is referring to one who had already set out on the way, so that it is apparent that his intention is to be a nazirite until he reaches his destination. The Gemara asks: Why is it assumed that he means to accept a single term of naziriteship that is the length of time it takes to travel to a certain destination? And let each and every parasang [parsa] be understood to refer to a separate term of naziriteship, such that the individual is understood to have accepted a separate term of naziriteship for each parasang that he must travel. Rav Pappa said: The mishna deals with a place where people do not measure distances in parasangs.
וְלִיהְוֵי כׇּל אַוּוֹנָא וְאַוּוֹנָא! מִי לָא תְּנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ״, וְ״כִשְׂעַר רֹאשִׁי״, וּ״כְחוֹל הַיָּם״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נְזִיר עוֹלָם, וּמְגַלֵּחַ אֶחָד לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם?!
The Gemara asks further: And let each and every way station [avvana], where travelers lodge at night, be understood to refer to a separate term of naziriteship, such that the individual is understood to have accepted a separate term of naziriteship for each station that he passes along the way. Didn’t we learn in a mishna (8a): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite like the dust of the earth, or: Like the hair of my head, or: Like the sand of the sea, he is a nazirite forever, as it is understood that he accepted upon himself terms of naziriteship in accordance with the number of his hairs, or grains of dust, or sand, and he shaves once every thirty days?
כׇּל מִילְּתָא דְּאִית בַּיהּ קִיצּוּתָא לָא קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara responds: Everything that has a fixed amount is not taught in this clause, which states that one is a nazirite forever. When one declares that he will be a nazirite for a length of time corresponding to an item that people consider infinite, e.g., the dust of the earth, his intention is not to define the length of a single term of naziriteship, as it is unknown how many grains of dust there are. However, when one mentions something that does have a fixed number, e.g., the number of days it takes to walk to a certain place, his intention is to define the length of a single term of naziriteship.
וְהָתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר כׇּל יְמֵי חַיַּי״, ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר עוֹלָם״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נְזִיר עוֹלָם. אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה שָׁנָה, אֲפִילּוּ אֶלֶף שָׁנִים — אֵין זֶה נְזִיר עוֹלָם, אֶלָּא נָזִיר לְעוֹלָם.
And similarly, it is taught in a baraita: If one says: I am hereby a nazirite all the days of my life, or: I am hereby a permanent nazirite, he is a permanent nazirite. However, if he said that he is a nazirite for a fixed period of time, even for one hundred years or even for one thousand years, he is not a permanent nazirite. Rather, he is a regular nazirite forever, since he will not live long enough to complete his term of naziriteship. This demonstrates that there is a difference between a naziriteship that lasts for a fixed time and a naziriteship that is unlimited.
רַבָּה אָמַר: שָׁאנֵי שְׂעָרוֹת, הוֹאִיל וּמוּבְדָּלוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ.
Rabba said another reason for the distinction between one who accepts naziriteship based on the distance between places and one who accepts naziriteship based on the number of hairs on his head or the dust of the earth. Hairs are different, since they are separated from each other. Consequently, one who says: Like the hair of my head, is referring to distinct terms of naziriteship.
גַּבֵּי יוֹמֵי נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד״!
The Gemara asks: Also with regard to days, isn’t it written: “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5), which indicates that each day is a separate unit? Consequently, one who vows to be a nazirite: From here until such and such a place, should be considered to have accepted upon himself distinct terms of naziriteship corresponding to the number of days it takes to travel to the designated destination.
הָתָם לָאו דְּמִפַּסְקִי מֵהֲדָדֵי הוּא. מַאי קָאָמַר — יְמָמָא וְלֵילְיָא חַד יוֹמָא הוּא, וּלְעוֹלָם לָא מִפַּסְקִי מֵהֲדָדֵי.
The Gemara answers: The meaning of the verse there is not that days are separated from each other, because time is continuous. Rather, what it is saying is that the period of day and night is one calendar day, but actually days are not separate from each other.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְמָה לָךְ אַקְשׁוֹיֵי כּוּלֵּי הַאי, שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּהָא קָתָנֵי ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אַחַת״.
The discussion above stemmed from the difficulty with the mishna’s case where one accepted naziriteship from now until the end of the world. Rava said: Why do you raise all these difficulties? It is different there, as it teaches that the individual said: I am hereby a nazirite for one long term. Since he specified that he is accepting one term of naziriteship, his statement is interpreted accordingly and is not interpreted as a reference to multiple terms of naziriteship.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְיוֹם אֶחָד״, ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְשָׁעָה אַחַת״, ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אַחַת וּמֶחֱצָה״ — הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם.
MISHNA: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite and one day, or: I am hereby a nazirite and one hour, or: I am hereby a nazirite for one and a half, he becomes a nazirite for two consecutive terms of naziriteship. When he says: I am hereby a nazirite, he accepts upon himself one thirty-day term of naziriteship. When he subsequently adds an additional amount of time, e.g., an extra day, he thereby accepts upon himself an additional term of naziriteship, and the minimal term of naziriteship is thirty days.
גְּמָ׳ לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא כׇּל הָנֵי? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי תְּנָא ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְיוֹם אֶחָד״, הָכָא הוּא דְּאָמְרִינַן: אֵין נְזִירוּת לְיוֹם אֶחָד, אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי קָמָנֵי תַּרְתֵּין. אֲבָל ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר וְשָׁעָה אַחַת״ — לִימְנֵי שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד יוֹם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach all these cases rather than giving just one example of the mishna’s principle? The Gemara explains: All the cases are necessary, as, if the mishna had taught only the case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite and one day, one might have thought: It is here that we say that there is no naziriteship for one day, and therefore he must count two terms of naziriteship. However, if he said: I am hereby a nazirite and one hour, let him count thirty-one days. The mishna therefore teaches us that even in this latter case he must keep two terms of naziriteship.
וְאִי תְּנָא ״שָׁעָה אַחַת״, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נָחֵית לְדַוְקָא. אֲבָל אַחַת וּמֶחֱצָה, דְּנָחֵית לְדַוְקָא — אֵימָא לָא לִימְנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן כּוּלְּהוּ — נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם.
And if the mishna taught only the case where one said: I am hereby a nazirite and one hour, one might have said that he is obligated in two periods of naziriteship because he did not go into specific detail [davka]. He merely stated that he accepts upon himself some part of a second term of naziriteship, and therefore he must observe a full second term of naziriteship. However, in the case of one who says he will be a nazirite for one and a half, where he does go into specific detail, one might say he should not have to count two full terms of naziriteship but rather forty-five days of naziriteship. The mishna therefore teaches us that in all these cases he is a nazirite for two full terms of naziriteship.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְשָׁעָה אַחַת״ — נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד יוֹם, שֶׁאֵין נְזִירוּת לְשָׁעוֹת.
MISHNA: One who says: I am hereby a nazirite for thirty days and one hour, becomes a nazirite for thirty-one days, as there is no naziriteship for hours but only for full days.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד יוֹם״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״שְׁלֹשִׁים [יוֹם] וְיוֹם אֶחָד״ — נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם.
GEMARA: Rav said: They taught that he is a nazirite for thirty-one days only when he said: Thirty-one days. But if he said: Thirty days and one day, he is a nazirite for two terms of naziriteship, since the thirty days are considered one term of naziriteship, and the additional day is the start of an additional term.
רַב סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּדָרֵישׁ לִישָּׁנָא יַתִּירָא.
The Gemara comments: In this regard, Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who derives meaning from superfluous language. Rabbi Akiva believes that if one uses unnecessary words, it is inferred that he intended to add something. In this case, since the individual said: Thirty days and one day, without combining them into one amount, he intended to accept an additional term of naziriteship.
דִּתְנַן: לֹא אֶת הַבּוֹר וְלֹא אֶת הַדּוּת — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ עוּמְקָא וְרוּמָא. וְצָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 64a): According to Rabbi Akiva, if one sold his house to another without specification, he has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut] with it, although he wrote to him in the document of sale: With its depth and its height. This is because anything that is not part of the house, e.g., pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract. And the seller must purchase a path through the property he sold along with the house in order to reach the pit or cistern that he kept for himself. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ״ שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיקַּח לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ.
And the Rabbis say: He does not need to purchase a path, as it is assumed that just as he maintained his rights to the pit or cistern, he also maintained the right to walk through the rest of the property in order to access the pit or cistern. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when he says to him in the document of sale: Apart from these, i.e., the pit and cistern, that he does not need to purchase a path. Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning is this: Since the seller unnecessarily stressed that the pit and cistern are not included in the sale, he must have intended to thereby reserve for himself the right of access. This proves that, according to Rabbi Akiva, if one adds a superfluous clause he must have had a specific meaning in mind, and something must be derived from his statement. Rav follows a similar line of reasoning with regard to the case of a nazirite.
